Chance me PLEASE (I beg)! I’m a McCall MacBain semi-finalist and scared I won’t even get in to McGill

[lawap12]

LSAT 159

cGPA: 4.0 (I think? My cumulative average of my undergrad thus far is 92%, not totally sure how that translates, but according to the website chart that’s a 4.0? My undergrad school doesn’t really use GPA) 

ECs: Students’ Union President, varsity athletics team captain (I’ve already received an athletics offer from McGill for my sport), and a lot of grassroots fundraising for the hospital where my father died (included in PS).

 

one of my referees is also a professor of mine who is recent (within the past ten years) McGill Law alum.

please chance me, I’m really stressed about this.

[JanLevinson]

What schools are you applying to?

[scooter]

Relax, you will be fine. You have perfect grades and strong leadership in extra curricular activities. I assume if you are being considered for the scholarship, then your personal statement is probably well-written. Your LSAT is not high but it's also not very far off from McGill's median. There's no need for you to be stressing.

[lawap12]

39 minutes ago, JanLevinson said:

What schools are you applying to?

McGill, dal, and UNB

35 minutes ago, scooter said:

Relax, you will be fine. You have perfect grades and strong leadership in extra curricular activities. I assume if you are being considered for the scholarship, then your personal statement is probably well-written. Your LSAT is not high but it's also not very far off from McGill's median. There's no need for you to be stressing.

I’m more so worried because of the LSAT being low. It’s pretty difficult to get into McGill as a non-Quebec resident 

[scooter]

9 minutes ago, lawap12 said:

I’m more so worried because of the LSAT being low

Their median LSAT is around 162 and their median GPA is around 3.8/85%. You're below the LSAT median but well above the GPA median. Your GPA should more than make up for the LSAT. They are just looking to answer the question "Do we think this person will be successful academically in law school?". With a 4.0 and 159, the answer should be yes.

[HoggPower]

Congratulations on your successes. Don't doubt yourself. You are a well-rounded candidate. Good luck!

[Darth Vader]

I disagree with the other comments. McGill has rejected people with your stats before. And being involved in varsity athletics and student government is fairly common for law school applicants. So, no one can tell you that you will for sure get in. You have a good chance though.

With those stats, why are you applying to Dalhousie and UNB and not UBC, Osgoode, or Queen's? It's worth a shot even if your LSAT score is below the medians.You need to convert your GPA properly for the schools you are applying to.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Darth Vader

[scooter]

21 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

So, no one can tell you that you will for sure get in. You have a good chance though.

Yeah, OP - this is what I was trying to convey, although maybe I didn't do a great job. I'm just trying to say that your stress is unwarranted. You sound like a strong applicant who is putting your best food forward. Control what is in your control, and don't worry about the rest.

[Ben]

Why don’t you write the LSAT again? 

[Thrive92]

OP your cgpa will help you alot in getting admitted to McGill, and your ECs are solid.

I wouldn't sweat it, but if you are still uneasy about it I would recommend you retake the LSAT to get a higher score, even if it is just a few points higher. As someone mentioned above, your cgpa puts you way above the median, well enough to the extent that it may completely make up for your below - average lsat.

53 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

I disagree with the other comments. McGill has rejected people with your stats before. And being involved in varsity athletics and student government is fairly common for law school applicants. So, no one can tell you that you will for sure get in. You have a good chance though.

With those stats, why are you applying to Dalhousie and UNB and not UBC, Osgoode, or Queen's? It's worth a shot even if your LSAT score is below the medians.You need to convert your GPA properly for the schools you are applying to.

McGill may have rejected people with OP's stats before, but it would be even more unusual for the school to accept applicants with lower stats than OP's. Having said that, indicating that McGill had previously rejected applicants with mid - to - high stats seems to be based on an extreme outlier data that is not representative of what OP would likely experience.

No post in this forum is to determine whether someone would get admitted to a school for sure or not unless it is painfully obvious based on the stats of the applicant and the average acceptance stats of the school-- There's no point in stating that no one can tell OP for sure of admittance unless OP has competitive stats, which OP does.

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Thrive92

[lawap12]

1 hour ago, Darth Vader said:

I disagree with the other comments. McGill has rejected people with your stats before. And being involved in varsity athletics and student government is fairly common for law school applicants. So, no one can tell you that you will for sure get in. You have a good chance though.

With those stats, why are you applying to Dalhousie and UNB and not UBC, Osgoode, or Queen's? It's worth a shot even if your LSAT score is below the medians.You need to convert your GPA properly for the schools you are applying to.

I just never had any interest in those schools, honestly. Montreal is about as big of a city as I’d like to go / as far away from home as I’d like to go as well. I’m a maritime resident 

9 minutes ago, lawap12 said:

I just never had any interest in those schools, honestly. Montreal is about as big of a city as I’d like to go / as far away from home as I’d like to go as well. I’m a maritime resident 

I’m also like not 110% committed to McGill, either. If I somehow won one of the major McCall MacBain scholarships and get into McGill, I’ll accept my offer the same day - because I’d be a total idiot not to. But in any other case, I’ll likely find myself at dal. Close to home, easier to travel back and forth with my dog, and it would close the gap in my long distance relationship instead of adding another 3 years to it (of course, that’s not a priority over my school, but a nice bonus). Dal is also a bit of a legacy school in my family (3 family members) 

 

edit: I guess I shouldn’t say I’m not committed, because that’s not exactly what I mean. What I’m saying is McGill isnt the be all end all for me, but if the stars somehow align with the scholarship and I didn’t get into McGill, I’d probably lose my mind yaknow, hence the stress. I know I’ll be happy wherever I end up.

Edited October 27, 2021 by lawap12

[Darth Vader]

49 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

OP your cgpa will help you alot in getting admitted to McGill, and your ECs are solid.

I wouldn't sweat it, but if you are still uneasy about it I would recommend you retake the LSAT to get a higher score, even if it is just a few points higher. As someone mentioned above, your cgpa puts you way above the median, well enough to the extent that it may completely make up for your below - average lsat.

McGill may have rejected people with OP's stats before, but it would be even more unusual for the school to accept applicants with lower stats than OP's. Having said that, indicating that McGill had previously rejected applicants with mid - to - high stats seems to be based on an extreme outlier data that is not representative of what OP would likely experience.

No post in this forum is to determine whether someone would get admitted to a school for sure or not unless it is painfully obvious based on the stats of the applicant and the average acceptance stats of the school-- There's no point in stating that no one can tell OP for sure of admittance unless OP has competitive stats, which OP does.

 

Are you law school applicant? You speak with authority on a lot of issues on this forum, without making it clear that you are not even in law school yet. I have been a lawyer for a few years now, and have seen how the admissions process has played out over the years, as I was also active on the old forum and seen the chances, acceptance, rejected, and waitlist threads. McGill is not a stats only school. Otherwise, they would just accept everyone with no LSAT and 3.8+ GPAs and be done with it. OP also stated that they have not converted their GPA yet. It can swing either way for OP and their extracurriculars are common among law school applicants.

You might want to add that you are a law school applicant to your handle, so people know your level of expertise. Otherwise, your posts come across as highly misleading since they're just based on your assumptions. 

[Avatar Aang]

Yea, tags is helpful.

[Thrive92]

46 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

Are you law school applicant? You speak with authority on a lot of issues on this forum, without making it clear that you are not even in law school yet. I have been a lawyer for a few years now, and have seen how the admissions process has played out over the years, as I was also active on the old forum and seen the chances, acceptance, rejected, and waitlist threads. McGill is not a stats only school. Otherwise, they would just accept everyone with no LSAT and 3.8+ GPAs and be done with it. OP also stated that they have not converted their GPA yet. It can swing either way for OP and their extracurriculars are common among law school applicants.

You might want to add that you are a law school applicant to your handle, so people know your level of expertise. Otherwise, your posts come across as highly misleading since they're just based on your assumptions. 

You are implying that those who are not yet lawyers are incapable of providing accurate or knowledgeable information compared to those who are currently working in the legal field. Although I am not yet a lawyer, it is odd for you to assume that someone who has been well versed and keen to the new updates of admissions for several law schools for more than a decade is somehow providing misleading information simply because you do not agree with it. I too was active on the old forum and have seen the chances, acceptance, rejected, and waitlist threads for many cycles -- this is not something that you should type out in order to place more weight to your posts.

The fact that you need to clarify to me that McGill is not a stats only school is a bit confusing. Do you think this fact that is easily accessible in their website somehow provides you with more credibility in this thread? OP not yet converting their GPA means little considering the fact that a 92% is generally an excellent score -- if it is not 4.00 cgpa as OP have thought, it may be awfully close. Sure it can swing either way as you say -- but it is odd how you would rely on the extreme and few cases of applicants in the past with stats similar to OP being rejected, and using those instances as evidence that you disagree with the other comments.

If it would make you feel better that you are a lawyer and that I am not by me adding that handle, I can arrange that for you. However, I think you get my point that you don't necessarily need a law degree to provide accurate and knowledgeable information in regards to law schools and its admission policies.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Thrive92

[Darth Vader]

14 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

You are implying that those who are not yet lawyers are incapable of providing accurate or knowledgeable information compared to those who are currently working in the legal field. Although I am not yet a lawyer, it is odd for you to assume that someone who has been well versed and keen to the new updates of admissions for several law schools for more than a decade is somehow providing misleading information simply because you do not agree with it. I too was active on the old forum and have seen the chances, acceptance, rejected, and waitlist threads for many cycles -- this is not something that you should type out in order to place more weight to your posts.

The fact that you need to clarify to me that McGill is not a stats only school is a bit confusing. Do you think this fact that is easily accessible in their website somehow provides you with more credibility in this thread? OP not yet converting their GPA means little considering the fact that a 92% is generally an excellent score -- if it is not 4.00 cgpa as OP have thought, it may be awfully close. Sure it can swing either way as you say -- but it is odd how you would rely on the extreme and few cases of applicants in the past with stats similar to OP being rejected, and using those instances as evidence that you disagree with the other comments.

If it would make you feel better that you are a lawyer and that I am not by me adding that handle, I can arrange that for you. However, I think you get my point that you don't necessarily need a law degree to provide accurate and knowledgeable information in regards to law schools and its admission policies.

Yes, please update your handle as most everyone that has 100+ posts on this forum has done already. You don't just provide information that can be found on a website, but your own opinions and assumptions. You assume your opinions are correct and knowledgeable, but they are often not and you've been called out many times by other posters on this forum. Besides the common, copy and paste responses adcoms often give applicants and students, they also have law students and lawyers sit on admissions committees, admissions panels, and have deeper discussions about the admissions process with them. They reveal tidbits and nuances about the process that they would not otherwise mention on a website or email response to an applicant.

I have participated in all these processes and know people who've sat on admissions committees across many different law schools (and have close personal relationships with some). So, when I talk about law school admissions, my information comes from more than what I have read on the forums or a website. I am not saying that I am better than you because I am lawyer, but the sources of information and experience vary between us. And, yes, it's important for people on this forum to know who they are engaging with and what level of the process they are currently in - whether they are an applicant, law student, lawyer, non-lawyer, etc. Otherwise, why have lawyers and law students sit on admissions panels when we could just have knowledgeable applicants sit on them and give information on the admissions process and policies of the law schools? How many people would turn out to that?

[Thrive92]

1 hour ago, Darth Vader said:

Yes, please update your handle as most everyone that has 100+ posts on this forum has done already. You don't just provide information that can be found on a website, but your own opinions and assumptions. You assume your opinions are correct and knowledgeable, but they are often not and you've been called out many times by other posters on this forum. Besides the common, copy and paste responses adcoms often give applicants and students, they also have law students and lawyers sit on admissions committees, admissions panels, and have deeper discussions about the admissions process with them. They reveal tidbits and nuances about the process that they would not otherwise mention on a website or email response to an applicant.

I have participated in all these processes and know people who've sat on admissions committees across many different law schools (and have close personal relationships with some). So, when I talk about law school admissions, my information comes from more than what I have read on the forums or a website. I am not saying that I am better than you because I am lawyer, but the sources of information and experience vary between us. And, yes, it's important for people on this forum to know who they are engaging with and what level of the process they are currently in - whether they are an applicant, law student, lawyer, non-lawyer, etc. Otherwise, why have lawyers and law students sit on admissions panels when we could just have knowledgeable applicants sit on them and give information on the admissions process and policies of the law schools? How many people would turn out to that?

This is news to me; when it comes to my advices in regards to the admissions process for law schools, it is very rare that I get "called out many times by other posters on this forum", let alone be told that my opinions and assumptions for law school admissions are incorrect.

It is great that you have participated in all of these processes, but I think you may be inflating the importance of these discussions and applying them inappropriately for law schools that you may not know the admissions processes of, despite the fact that you "know people" who also participates in these discussions from many other law schools. For example, your reliance on the fact that some applicants with similar stats as OP in this thread have been rejected in the past with how you disagree with other posters who indicate that OP has a good chance of being admitted into McGill may not be derived from the experience and knowledge that you may have gained in those discussions, but instead be based on your personal opinion which may not be correct (keep in mind that "correct" here is not directed at your statement of how applicants with similar stats have been rejected in the past, but instead of your disagreement with others of OP having a good chance of being admitted).

Another example is your post earlier in a different thread indicates that the applicant should not apply under the access category as "they would take more time to review your application and if you are accepted, it would likely further along in the process". It does not take much effort to find out that this is not true for all law schools. An easy example of this would be the applicant who was accepted under the access category literally on the first day of the acceptance notifications being sent out for TRU in the 2021 cycle.

By applying the knowledge that you may have gained by sitting in on these discussions for other law schools that you do not know anything about in regards to its application processes, you are not only providing false and misleading information but also be providing a certain level of authority based on your handle of "lawyer", and how some users on this forum may see that handle and mistaken you as someone who is knowledgeable in every post that you type, despite the fact that this is not the case. This may be dangerous, as there may be some users who are relying on your information when applying to law school, even if that information is misleading and not true.

You are definitely correct in stating that the source of information and experience vary between us; I would directly contact multiple law schools on a yearly basis (more than once for some schools) in order to find out what may have changed from the last admissions cycle policies, as well as any other information that can be clarified that may not be provided on their websites. I may contact them more than once in order to ensure that I have received the accurate and correct information. I do not use the information that I have been provided in one school and apply them to other schools as you have done with your discussions.

I also agree that it is important that people on this forum know who they are engaging with and what level of the process they are currently in. However, this may also backfire and have a damaging effect as I have mentioned earlier on this post. Your handle of a "lawyer" may provide you a certain level of authority and assurance by other users on this forum that your information is correct, even if they are false and misleading. Having said that, your emphasis on these handles may not be a good idea.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Thrive92

[Darth Vader]

Regarding this thread, I saw a long list of applicants basically coddle the OP and offer them assurances of their acceptance into McGill. Which is why I took a harsher tone to play devil's advocate and say that they are not guaranteed admissions as some posts seemed to suggest. 

In my opinion, this person has a much more competitive profile than the OP even though their undergraduate GPA is lower and around McGill's median. I'm all for showering praises on people's anxieties, but a purpose of the forum is to also offer realistic feedback even if it is something they do not want to hear. In my opinion, OP's extracurriculars are on the weaker side for McGill as they have one student organization, one varsity sport, and one fundraiser. Reference letters don't count for much in the process either. 

As for the access applicant thread, I stand by it. People think the access category is an easier admissions process but there are pros and cons to applying in it. One con is the longer time it usually takes adcoms to review these applications, as they do not just look at stats alone and assess other contextual factors, and may even conduct interviews in some cases. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply everywhere in all cases, and I don't think anyone suggested it did, but it is a possibility and one worth mentioning. A school like Queen's for example had 87% get in through the General Category and 13% in the access category, with the average stats being similar in both categories. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Darth Vader
McGill doesn't require the LSAT, but if it is on the file, then they will look at it and consider it in their admissions decision as well.

[lawap12]

3 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

Regarding this thread, I saw a long list of applicants basically coddle the OP and offer them assurances of their acceptance into McGill. Which is why I took a harsher tone to play devil's advocate and say that they are not guaranteed admissions as some posts seemed to suggest. 

In my opinion, this person has a much more competitive profile than the OP even though their undergraduate GPA is lower and around McGill's median. I'm all for showering praises on people's anxieties, but a purpose of the forum is to also offer realistic feedback even if it is something they do not want to hear. In my opinion, OP's extracurriculars are on the weaker side for McGill as they have one student organization, one varsity sport, and one fundraiser. Reference letters don't count for much in the process either. 

As for the access applicant thread, I stand by it. People think the access category is an easier admissions process but there are pros and cons to applying in it. One con is the longer time it usually takes adcoms to review these applications, as they do not just look at stats alone and assess other contextual factors, and may even conduct interviews in some cases. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply everywhere in all cases, and I don't think anyone suggested it did, but it is a possibility and one worth mentioning. A school like Queen's for example had 87% get in through the General Category and 13% in the access category, with the average stats being similar in both categories. 

3 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

Regarding this thread, I saw a long list of applicants basically coddle the OP and offer them assurances of their acceptance into McGill. Which is why I took a harsher tone to play devil's advocate and say that they are not guaranteed admissions as some posts seemed to suggest. 

In my opinion, this person has a much more competitive profile than the OP even though their undergraduate GPA is lower and around McGill's median. I'm all for showering praises on people's anxieties, but a purpose of the forum is to also offer realistic feedback even if it is something they do not want to hear. In my opinion, OP's extracurriculars are on the weaker side for McGill as they have one student organization, one varsity sport, and one fundraiser. Reference letters don't count for much in the process either. 

As for the access applicant thread, I stand by it. People think the access category is an easier admissions process but there are pros and cons to applying in it. One con is the longer time it usually takes adcoms to review these applications, as they do not just look at stats alone and assess other contextual factors, and may even conduct interviews in some cases. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply everywhere in all cases, and I don't think anyone suggested it did, but it is a possibility and one worth mentioning. A school like Queen's for example had 87% get in through the General Category and 13% in the access category, with the average stats being similar in both categories. 

First, I feel your argument with the other person should probably be taken elsewhere. I feel like I’m becoming collateral damage here.

 

Second, I obviously didn’t post my entire resume here. Those are the activities I’m currently most focused on, but my experience (including government work - in French, at that, Parks Canada work, awards, internships, co-operative education placements, legal work, etc.) 

The person who you argued was a better applicant than me, we really have no idea about the rest of that person’s application. Maybe they failed to disclose LSAT. Maybe they couldn’t write a good PS. We’ll never know, really.

 

feeling the need to “play devils advocate” because the general consensus in the replies is that the person has a good chance of acceptance isn’t a valid reason to disagree. I’m not saying you shouldn’t disagree, but the reason you’ve given for doing so is not valid.

again, argument should be taken elsewhere. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

Ignoring OP's request to take the argument elsewhere—largely because their post is annoying and the argument is the only interesting thing that's happened—I have no strong opinions on Thrive but do find the suggestion that lawyers know more about law school admissions than applicants a bit bizarre. 

I'm a lawyer and used to be a law school applicant, and I undoubtedly know less about law school admissions than I did when I was an applicant. It's just not a matter of concern for me anymore, so while I probably know more than the average lawyer due to my continued participation on these forums, I think most competent applicants would know more than me. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[Hegdis]

If anyone has anything to say re the OP’s first post, go ahead. If we want to have a wider discussion about qualifications and admissions and opinions the mods can splice it off - or you can start your own thread. 

[Thrive92]

8 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

Regarding this thread, I saw a long list of applicants basically coddle the OP and offer them assurances of their acceptance into McGill. Which is why I took a harsher tone to play devil's advocate and say that they are not guaranteed admissions as some posts seemed to suggest. 

In my opinion, this person has a much more competitive profile than the OP even though their undergraduate GPA is lower and around McGill's median. I'm all for showering praises on people's anxieties, but a purpose of the forum is to also offer realistic feedback even if it is something they do not want to hear. In my opinion, OP's extracurriculars are on the weaker side for McGill as they have one student organization, one varsity sport, and one fundraiser. Reference letters don't count for much in the process either. 

As for the access applicant thread, I stand by it. People think the access category is an easier admissions process but there are pros and cons to applying in it. One con is the longer time it usually takes adcoms to review these applications, as they do not just look at stats alone and assess other contextual factors, and may even conduct interviews in some cases. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply everywhere in all cases, and I don't think anyone suggested it did, but it is a possibility and one worth mentioning. A school like Queen's for example had 87% get in through the General Category and 13% in the access category, with the average stats being similar in both categories. 

Using the 2021 rejected applicants as a reference to back up your "devil's advocate" position may not be the best way to do this; many see the 2021 admissions cycle for many law schools in Canada to be abnormal and unlikely to happen again in the future cycles. I'm not saying that there are no applicants with similar stats to OP who have been rejected in the cycles prior to the 2021 cycle, but using the 2021 rejections as your only example to support your stance on this thread may not be smart.

Also, as OP mentions later on, their stats posted on this forum is incomplete and does not represent their entire EC.

As for the access thread, nobody including myself was arguing that access category is "easier". The argument that you brought up was how applying for access is pointless if you have competitive stats for the general category, as well as how one may be disadvantaged should they apply access due to the increased time to process the application (which is not true). By stating that it usually takes adcoms longer to process and assess access applicants than general applicants without providing a specific school(s) that do this, some readers may reasonably apply this statement to law schools that may not at all be doing this. Your handle of "lawyer" may further lead people to make this error, as they may draw inference from your handle and that you know what you are typing about.

The Queen's example that you provided to support your argument is a bit odd. The general category is by definition the category in which applicants who may not meet the criteria in other categories apply to. In other words, the general category is where the most applications are likely to be submitted to. To have the most admitted applicants from the general category compared to access is expected from the adcom. A more relevant example may be to provide the acceptance rate of each category based on the applicant pool of not the entire school, but of the respective categories.

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Thrive92

[Pendragon]

5 hours ago, lawap12 said:

First, I feel your argument with the other person should probably be taken elsewhere. I feel like I’m becoming collateral damage here.

 

Second, I obviously didn’t post my entire resume here. Those are the activities I’m currently most focused on, but my experience (including government work - in French, at that, Parks Canada work, awards, internships, co-operative education placements, legal work, etc.) 

The person who you argued was a better applicant than me, we really have no idea about the rest of that person’s application. Maybe they failed to disclose LSAT. Maybe they couldn’t write a good PS. We’ll never know, really.

 

feeling the need to “play devils advocate” because the general consensus in the replies is that the person has a good chance of acceptance isn’t a valid reason to disagree. I’m not saying you shouldn’t disagree, but the reason you’ve given for doing so is not valid.

again, argument should be taken elsewhere. 

Darth said that you had a "good chance of getting in though" in their first post in this thread...And you didn't mentioned all these other things you were involved in before now. This debate is pointless. OP should just apply and see where they get in. 

[CleanHands]

On 10/26/2021 at 11:03 PM, Thrive92 said:

someone who has been well versed and keen to the new updates of admissions for several law schools for more than a decade

But why though?

[Thrive92]

45 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

But why though?

Practically every year since I graduated high school, law school was "only a few years away" for me. I would look up and call up the law schools I've bound to go in less than a few academic years in undergrad and ask them questions that really wouldn't apply to me for at least a few years. I became nearly obsessed with how some law schools would calculate an applicant's gpa/lsat/other factors, and I would try to cater my semesters in undergrad to give me a "leading  edge" when I would apply to that particular law school. An example would be when I tried to take eight courses in a single semester like an idiot in order to fulfill U of Sask's gpa policy of "minimum 24 credits required to count as an academic year"; I was hoping to fulfill this policy in a single semester in order to take two semesters off.

Then life happened, and I realized that I wasn't necessarily as smart or ambitious as I thought I would be, and there was a time where I took two years off from school in order to focus on other things, with the intent to come back in order to get the law school application going again. I've even kept tabs for a few schools during those 2 years as well. Hence the 10+ years I've been keeping regularly updated on some of the law schools' admissions policies.

 

[ClarkGriswold]

12 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

An example would be when I tried to take eight courses in a single semester like an idiot in order to fulfill U of Sask's gpa policy of "minimum 24 credits required to count as an academic year"; I was hoping to fulfill this policy in a single semester in order to take two semesters off.